There are many applications of personal protective equipment (PPE) components embedded into the fabrication of various shoes, boots, protective guards, aprons, sheathing, vests, helmets, gloves, and many other devices. Each of the above applications has many specific applications in the marketplace. For example, work boots may have a safety toe and/or a metatarsal shield and/or a puncture-resistant sole and/or embed various devices to minimize shock hazards, etc.
Each specific application has further applications based on the type of materials used to construct the PPE components in the various applications in which they are employed. Some common PPE materials include metal, plastic, polymers, rubber, fiberglass, wood, and/or various composites. In addition, materials such as Kevlar and similar variants provide levels of protection against ballistic penetration.
A specific application of a work boot is further expanded by identifying that there are many varied applications of the boot, such as manufacturing, heavy industrial, combat boots, jump boots, hiking, fireman, muck boots, linemen, static dissipative, shockproof, construction, snakebite, and many other specific applications. Each of these applications requires a different set of PPE components to address the needs of the user.
In addition to boots, PPE components are sometimes employed into casual shoes, sports shoes, and other types of footwear. It is improbable for one foot application to employ every version of PPE available, rather that different footwear applications employ appropriate PPE components to meet the need of the user.
In addition to footwear applications, there are applications for PPE related to gloves, aprons, strap-on devices, vest, shields, helmets, and many other PPE products. Each application implements a unique set of PPE components to provide the user with a measure of protection.
The disadvantages of current methods are numerous. One disadvantage is that many PPE component applications are bulky, heavy, or cumbersome, causing discomfort to the user. This discomfort results in reduced satisfaction on the part of the user and often results in the user not wearing the PPE safety device.
Another disadvantage is that current methods do not provide a ventilation means and/or they provide little or no insulation potential.
Another disadvantage of the current methods is that the PPE components require very rigid structures that correspondingly restrict movement by the user and promote discomfort. For example, work boots that employ puncture-resistant soles employ PPE components that provide a puncture-resistant device that does not promote flexibility along the arch portion of the foot. In similar fashion, PPE components that provide a rigid shank device do not promote flexibility for the rest of the foot.
Another disadvantage of the current methods is that there is no safety toe cap designed to provide protection from lateral crushing forces. For example, all current safety toe caps are designed to resist a certain amount of vertical impact and vertical crushing forces, but not one toe cap is designed to resist similar lateral impact or lateral crushing forces.
A further disadvantage of the current methods is that a measure of safety must be reduced in order to achieve flexibility in certain PPE components. Also, the conflict between flexible PPE components and rigid PPE components results in the employment of multiple PPE components in the product application, which inflates the costs of the final product and/or complicates the manufacture of the product application, also inflating final production costs.
Yet another disadvantage of the current methods is that the materials used for many PPE components results in heavy structures that give the wearer an un-natural feel using the device. However, a reduction in weight of many PPE components results in reduced protection.
Another disadvantage of the current methods is that the expense of the PPE components limits the applications where they can be implemented. For example, Kevlar is a material with good ballistic penetration protection. It is also useful in puncture-resistant soles of work boots. However, the PPE component cost of Kevlar makes this material an unrealistic choice of construction material for most mainstream consumer products.
Yet another disadvantage of the current methods is that the PPE component materials do not lend themselves to alternate applications of the component. For example, steel safety toe components designed for heavy-duty applications do not have a light-duty version available for the mainstream market. As a result, light-duty applications seldom exist in the marketplace because there are little or no practical PPE components available for construction.
Still another disadvantage of the current methods is that there is no method of providing a structure that is inherently strong and yet lighter in weight compared to a similar structure using the same materials.
Yet another disadvantage of the current methods is that no viable safety toe cap designs are available that provide a non-bulbous low-profile toe cap that still provides performance requirements per ASTM or other similar standards. For example, there are no low-profile, non-bulbous toe caps that can be stylishly assembled into dress shoes or pointed cowboy boots that still provide acceptable performance per ASTM standards.
Yet another disadvantage of the current methods is that heavy-duty PPE components result in very cumbersome devices that interfere with the user's ability to function. For example, heavy-duty Kevlar vests protect the wearer from many life-threatening ballistic penetrations, but with the penalty of weight, lack of ventilation, and restricted movement. Another disadvantage of this current method is that these same PPE components have little or no known construction method for their application to combat footwear. Therefore, a solider may be well protected from upper body ballistic penetration and still be vulnerable to lower leg and foot injuries.
Still another disadvantage of the current methods is that many applications simply avoid employing PPE components because of thermal problems with either heat sinks and/or cold sinks. As a result, potential PPE advantages are not implemented, resulting in reduced protection for the user. For example, combat boots often do not contain a metal safety toe or metal puncture-resistant soleplate because of both the thermal problems associated with the metal as well as the problem of weight added to the boot. The combination of these disadvantages leads to basic issue combat and military boots not employing PPE components in the toe, metatarsal, sole, or anywhere else in the boot. The metallic PPE components in a combat boot potentially interfere with electrical components or communication signals, while non-metallic applications of the preferred embodiment prevent RFI and/or EMI problems.
Still another disadvantage of the current methods is that there are no viable application solutions for sports shoes that would prevent Turf Toe, an injury resulting from the toe of the foot being hyper-extended during sports activities.
Yet another disadvantage of the current methods is that they do not provide a viable relatively rigid soleplate section located directly at the end of the toes of climbing shoes that provides a suitable support for the toes of the foot when climbing in places with very slight toe holds.
Still another disadvantage of the current methods is that there are no viable application solutions for medical footwear that prevents impalement from dropped scalpels and needles or other sharp instruments during medical procedures.
Still another disadvantage of the current methods is that there is no viable method to determine by visual or tactile means whether PPE components have been compromised by an incidental impact incident. For instance, safety toe caps can be subjected to incidental impact forces that may or may not have cracked and/or may or may not have compromised the toe cap's ability to maintain appropriate safety performance ratings, and there is not a viable non-destructive means for the wearer to evaluate the toe cap to determine the integrity of the toe cap.
The disadvantages described above have similar scenarios in every product application where PPE components are employed using the current methods. While each application is different, the disadvantages follow similar themes of excessive cost, thermal problems, weight, and/or incompatibility of rigidity compared to flexibility.
A further embodiment of the present invention covers toe caps incorporated into personal footwear. Safety toe caps are required in many industries for many different reasons. Toe caps are designed to provide support protection from vertical crush forces. Additional performance requirements, such as electrical resistance, static resistance, chemical resistance, and the like, have led toe caps to the development of many construction materials other than steel.
Most workplace accidents that involve toe caps are the result of vertical crush forces. Safety caps are specified and required in many workplaces to provide personal protection for the wearer in the event that the foot is subjected to a vertical crush force.
However, a growing number of industry accidents occur each year related to lateral crush forces acting against the foot. Such accidents can take place when a worker gets his foot caught between rolling pipe, between pallets, or between pieces of equipment. In addition, a growing number of lateral side crush incidents take place each year related to truck loading and unloading, or in the construction industry where close quarters for foot placement exist.
Traditional safety toe caps are designed to meet specific performance requirements for vertical crush forces. If the same vertical crush force were to be applied to a traditional toe cap, the relative strength of the toe cap would only be about 20% of the vertical crush force loads.
The subject invention overcomes the stated problems of prior art toe caps and provides crush-resistant support against lateral crush forces. In addition, the subject invention provides improved structural performance against vertical crush forces.
The subject invention ushers in a new era of personal protective footwear that provides unprecedented protection from lateral side crush forces and will require that new standards be written and new test methods be established that embody the improved performance characteristics of this improved safety toe cap.
Prior art forms of safety toe caps for safety shoes are designed provide a measure of personal protection for the wearer in the event that a vertical crush force is subjected to the shoe. This protection provides a measure of protection to the toes and foot of the wearer against vertical crush forces. Many designs of toe caps exist in the global market place. Many construction materials are used to manufacture toe caps, such as steel, aluminum, plastics, fiberglass, composites, and other materials.
There are many different grades of vertical crush-resistant toe caps which are designed in compliance with various technical specifications. For instance, there are ASTM standards, Canadian standards, European standards, mining standards, military specifications, and others. It is seldom, if ever, practical for one toe cap design to meet all of the requirements of all the various technical standards in the industry.
All of the technical standards include testing provisions for vertical crush forces and appropriate minimum test requirements that must be met to comply with each respective standard. All safety toe caps used in the industry today are designed to comply with one of these standards or a similar performance requirement related to vertical crush forces.
While it is understood and recognized that the technical standards also provide design requirements for electrical features, impact, and chemical resistance, the focus of the subject invention is related directly to the vertical crush force applications and specifications of these technical standards.
Prior art safety toe caps all have a portion that covers over the toes of the foot and wraps around the sides of the foot at the toes. In addition, the prior art toe caps include a closed-toe portion at the front end of the toes. Some prior art toe caps include a portion that wraps further around the sides of the foot to form a flange-type structure extending laterally inward under the foot. The structural size and/or significance of the flange-type structure varies greatly from toe cap design to toe cap design, with many toe cap designs that have no evidence of the flange-type feature.
Typical steel, aluminum, or metal toe caps usually feature a uniform wall thickness everywhere in the cap, which is the most economical method for metal forming process. Some metal castings will feature different wall thicknesses in one portion of the toe compared to other wall thicknesses in other portions of the toe cap, which can provide improved strength in response to vertical crush forces.
Some prior art forms of toe caps include the placement of fibers in the toe cap walls to provide improved resistance to vertical crush forces. Other toe cap designs provide thick nose portions which are claimed to provide improved resistance to vertical crushing forces.
One problem with prior art forms of toe caps is that the current methods to improve the strength and performance of the toe cap against vertical crush forces result in the toe cap being bulky and bulbous, which makes the shoe undesirable to the wearer.
Another problem with prior art forms is that the extreme lateral sides of the toe cap spread out in a further lateral position relative to each other in response to vertical crushing force, resulting in severe deformation and/or damage to the shoe.
Another problem with prior art forms is that the extreme lateral sides of the toe cap are driven down into the shoe in response to vertical crush forces, resulting in reduced internal vertical space for the foot and toes.
Another problem with prior art forms is that none of the known toe caps are designed to provide support protection for the wearer against lateral crush forces. None of the technical standards provide a test procedure or a performance requirement against lateral side crush forces.
The subject invention overcomes these problems and provides additional improvements to safety toe caps that will be understood and appreciated by those skilled in the art.